Post by: guest39538 on 30/01/2018 00:16:04
I think they can......
Post by: evan_au on 30/01/2018 08:34:08
But it is possible to come very close:
- The proton has a very small volume, and is made of 3 quarks: two up quarks of charge +⅔ e and one down quark of charge –⅓ e, for a net charge of 1e.
- The neutron also has a very small volume, and is also made of 3 quarks: two down quarks with charge −⅓ e and one up quark with charge +⅔ e, for a net charge of 0.
- But these quarks are still discrete entities within the tiny volume of a proton or neutron, so they don't occupy exactly the same space. This was discovered by bombarding nuclei by high-energy electrons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
Please explain how you think it is possible to have 2 charges occupying exactly the same space without releasing an infinite amount of energy in the formation of this hypothetical particle.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/01/2018 11:05:40
Not exactly the same space and exactly opposite charges, otherwise there would be no net charge.
But it is possible to come very close:
- The proton has a very small volume, and is made of 3 quarks: two up quarks of charge +⅔ e and one down quark of charge –⅓ e, for a net charge of 1e.
- The neutron also has a very small volume, and is also made of 3 quarks: two down quarks with charge −⅓ e and one up quark with charge +⅔ e, for a net charge of 0.
- But these quarks are still discrete entities within the tiny volume of a proton or neutron, so they don't occupy exactly the same space. This was discovered by bombarding nuclei by high-energy electrons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
Please explain how you think it is possible to have 2 charges occupying exactly the same space without releasing an infinite amount of energy in the formation of this hypothetical particle.
I do not just think it possible, the laws of physics suggests it is possible because in two individual matrices of opposite polarities, all 0 points of matrice neg would be attracted to all 0 points of matrice pos and vice versus.
000→←111
000→←111
000→←111
There is no apparent reason both matrices could not merge to occupy the same space.
P.s I was considering electrical fields rather than atoms in this instance although this does associate with my n-field idea.
added- Both matrices will be in a natural state of expansion unless merged .
added- if the merged super matrice was to become polarised or part polarised , the super matrice would then expand.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/01/2018 12:22:43
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: guest39538 on 30/01/2018 12:38:25
Thanks Jef..
Post by: guest39538 on 30/01/2018 19:15:45
And here is the mono-pole matrice.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/01/2018 19:26:03
I have no idea why all of a sudden I know about matrices,What makes you think that you do?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/01/2018 19:57:03
Because it is a pretty easy subject really, now I am using it.I have no idea why all of a sudden I know about matrices,What makes you think that you do?
and it tells you here what it means
Quote
(maths) a rectangular array of elements set out in rows and columns, used to facilitate the solution of problems, such as the transformation of coordinates. Usually indicated by parentheses:
and it tells you here what transformation of coordinates means
Quote
Coordinate Transformations. A Cartesian coordinate system allows position and direction in space to be represented in a very convenient manner. Unfortunately, such a coordinate system also introduces arbitrary elements into our analysis.
I have stated force vectors and linear direction , and my conclusion is ΔX=Δq when considering these particular, well thought out, matrices.
Also in conclusion Matrice (A) cannot exist without Matrice (B) simultaneously.
Both matrice (A) and (B) will be in continuous expansion unless the event of the merge happens and two opposite polarities occupy the same space.
added - and this I why I stated before
→
E=(q1+q2)/4/3πr³
and any fluctuations in the super matrice being measured a negative or a positive relative to the neutral of the super matrice.
Post by: evan_au on 30/01/2018 20:49:08
Quote from: tkadm30
in two individual matrices of opposite polaritiesIt appears that you have illustrated two 3x3 mathematical matrices here (you need TeX to get nice braces :( ):
000→←111
000→←111
000→←111
1. The Zero matrix, with all elements = 0. This is a very important matrix to know, being similar to "0" in the integer numbers.
2. A matrix with all elements = 1. This is a run-of-the-mill matrix.
These matrices do not have opposite polarity. The "0" matrix has no polarity or sign.
By way of introduction to matrices, another important matrix to know is the Identity matrix "I", similar to "1" in the integer numbers:
100
010
001
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_matrix
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_matrix
Quote
opposite polaritiesJust like the integer numbers, you know that two matrixes have opposite polarity (or sign) if they add to give zero.
The two matrices you described do not add to give zero.
Just like in the integers, zero plus any matrix gives you the original matrix.
Quote
all 0 points of matrice neg would be attracted to all 0 points of matrice pos and vice versus.Why would one matrix be attracted to any other matrix?
That's like saying "0 is attracted to 1".
A force of attraction (or repulsion) exists between electrical charges, magnetic fields, masses, protons and neutrons.
You have not provided a mapping from a matrix (a mathematical object) onto electrical charges, magnetic fields, masses, protons and neutrons (physical objects).
Mathematics can be used to represent all these physical things, but I don't see how your 3x3 matrices represent any of these things.
Quote
There is no apparent reason both matrices could not merge to occupy the same space.There are several ways that two matrices can be merged to fill the same space.
Just as with integers, where 0 + 2 = 2 (where two numbers become 1 number), there is a form of matrix addition (where 2 matrices become one matrix):
000 111 111
000 + 111 = 111
000 111 111
Just as with integers, where 0 x 2 = 0 (where two numbers become 1 number), there is a form of matrix multiplication (where 2 matrices become one matrix). But it helps if you learn to add before you try to multiply.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_addition
Post by: guest39538 on 30/01/2018 21:31:46
Just like the integer numbers, you know that two matrixes have opposite polarity (or sign) if they add to give zero.
The two matrices you described do not add to give zero.
Just like in the integers, zero plus any matrix gives you the original matrix.
????
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: guest39538 on 30/01/2018 21:40:12
Why would one matrix be attracted to any other matrix?
Because my matrices are fields, positions in the field represented by numbers.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/01/2018 21:43:17
A force of attraction (or repulsion) exists between electrical charges, magnetic fields, masses, protons and neutrons.A force of attraction (or repulsion) exists between polarities , polarity unifies all the above forces. Polarity is the force.
Post by: guest39538 on 30/01/2018 21:46:55
You have not provided a mapping from a matrix (a mathematical object) onto electrical charges, magnetic fields, masses, protons and neutrons (physical objects).
You mean like 0→0 ?
Let {\displaystyle V} V and {\displaystyle W} W be vector spaces over the same field {\displaystyle \mathbf {K} .} {\displaystyle \mathbf {K} .} A function {\displaystyle f:V\to W} f : V \to W is said to be a linear map if for any two vectors
Im here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_map
added - Ok my new matrice looks like this
any closer to explaining what I am explaining?
linear maths.jpg (58.4 kB . 1914x922 - viewed 3172 times)and in my mono pole example I am at f: V ←→V
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/01/2018 22:04:17
Can two opposite polarities occupy the same space?What do you think "polarities" means here?
Post by: guest39538 on 30/01/2018 22:09:46
Iol I do see your point because polarity is not an object. Polarity is a 0 point of repulsive or attractive force.Can two opposite polarities occupy the same space?What do you think "polarities" means here?
added- so if two polarities can occupy the same space simultaneously, we have a ''dot'' product.
Post by: evan_au on 31/01/2018 10:43:51
Quote from: TheBox
(matrices) is a pretty easy subject really, now I am using itIt helps if you learn to recognise 0 and 1 before you try to add.
It helps if you learn add before you try to multiply.
I suggest you get the basics right first!
Quote
000 000Congratulations! This is the first of your equations that made sense in a long time!
000 + 000 = 0
000 000
(I am charitably assuming that you meant the "0" on the right-hand side as a shorthand for a 3x3 null matrix, otherwise it is still gobbledygook...)
Quote
my matrices are fields, positions in the field represented by numbers.There is a gravitational field in the Solar System, with the Sun and the planets.
I would like to see the 3x3 matrix which describes the Solar System.
There is an electrical field around my 1.5 volt battery.
I would like to see the 3x3 matrix which describes the battery.
There is a magnetic field around a horseshoe magnet.
I would like to see the 3x3 matrix which describes the magnetic field.
There is an atmospheric pressure field over my country.
I would like to see the 3x3 matrix which describes this aspect of the weather.
Quote
polarity unifies all the above forces. Polarity is the force.As far as we know, gravitational mass has no polarity.
Post by: guest39538 on 31/01/2018 13:14:03
I can't put the parentheses in but yes it is a 3*3 matrix
As far as we know, gravitational mass has no polarity.
I will try the other matrices
And I think your as far as you know is ostensible.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/02/2018 19:50:24
"polarity is not an object."Iol I do see your point because polarity is not an object. Polarity is a 0 point of repulsive or attractive force.Can two opposite polarities occupy the same space?What do you think "polarities" means here?
added- so if two polarities can occupy the same space simultaneously, we have a ''dot'' product.
Nobody said or implied that it was- I asked you what you thought it meant.
Your answer "Polarity is a 0 point of repulsive or attractive force."
is nonsense.
Added- so is this
"added- so if two polarities can occupy the same space simultaneously, we have a ''dot'' product. "
Post by: The Spoon on 01/02/2018 19:53:27
And I think your as far as you know is ostensible.This is also nonsense. It is a collection of random words.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/02/2018 20:43:07
And I think your as far as you know is ostensible.I think I can parse it (based on the assumption that he just forgot that punctuation is important)
He may have meant And I think your "as far as you know" is ostensible.
And I presume it refers to this "As far as we know, gravitational mass has no polarity."
I which case, it has a meaning, it's damned hard to find, and it's wrong.
Post by: guest39538 on 01/02/2018 22:23:54
Measuring two equal weights at once can only give a null result. And thanks for correcting my punctuation.And I think your as far as you know is ostensible.I think I can parse it (based on the assumption that he just forgot that punctuation is important)
He may have meant And I think your "as far as you know" is ostensible.
And I presume it refers to this "As far as we know, gravitational mass has no polarity."
I which case, it has a meaning, it's damned hard to find, and it's wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/02/2018 18:48:47
Measuring two equal weights at once can only give a null result.I have two sets of bathroom scales. If I stand on both of them I can weigh my left half and my right half.
The answer isn't zero.
So your post isn't just irrelevant, it's also factually incorrect.
What purpose did you think it served?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/02/2018 10:58:21
You really have a problem with reading. A set of bathroom scales is not a set of pan scales.Measuring two equal weights at once can only give a null result.I have two sets of bathroom scales. If I stand on both of them I can weigh my left half and my right half.
The answer isn't zero.
So your post isn't just irrelevant, it's also factually incorrect.
What purpose did you think it served?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/02/2018 11:07:21
Evan buddy, I have been doing abstraction math, that is why nobody understands it.Quote from: TheBox(matrices) is a pretty easy subject really, now I am using itIt helps if you learn to recognise 0 and 1 before you try to add.
It helps if you learn add before you try to multiply.
I suggest you get the basics right first!Quote000 000Congratulations! This is the first of your equations that made sense in a long time!
000 + 000 = 0
000 000
(I am charitably assuming that you meant the "0" on the right-hand side as a shorthand for a 3x3 null matrix, otherwise it is still gobbledygook...)Quotemy matrices are fields, positions in the field represented by numbers.There is a gravitational field in the Solar System, with the Sun and the planets.
I would like to see the 3x3 matrix which describes the Solar System.
There is an electrical field around my 1.5 volt battery.
I would like to see the 3x3 matrix which describes the battery.
There is a magnetic field around a horseshoe magnet.
I would like to see the 3x3 matrix which describes the magnetic field.
There is an atmospheric pressure field over my country.
I would like to see the 3x3 matrix which describes this aspect of the weather.Quotepolarity unifies all the above forces. Polarity is the force.As far as we know, gravitational mass has no polarity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/02/2018 11:59:34
I have a problem reading your mind.You really have a problem with reading. A set of bathroom scales is not a set of pan scales.Measuring two equal weights at once can only give a null result.I have two sets of bathroom scales. If I stand on both of them I can weigh my left half and my right half.
The answer isn't zero.
So your post isn't just irrelevant, it's also factually incorrect.
What purpose did you think it served?
You never said anything about what sort of scales.
You need to stop assuming that you are right.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/02/2018 12:01:07
Evan buddy, I have been doing abstraction math, that is why nobody understands it.
Do you mean abstract maths or mathematical abstraction?
Or were you just stringing "sciency sounding" words together?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/02/2018 12:02:56
Mathematical abstraction, very difficult to understand as well.Evan buddy, I have been doing abstraction math, that is why nobody understands it.
Do you mean abstract maths or mathematical abstraction?
Or were you just stringing "sciency sounding" words together?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/02/2018 12:09:22
(q1+q2)=n←→(q1+q2)=n
Mathematical abstraction can and does explain gravity mechanism in my honest opinion. Whether you could ever understand this though, well...!
I was nether stupid I was just doing things differently.
[000]→←[000]
[000]←→[000]
Gravity matrix
q represents polarity
the direction arrows represent vector force
each 0 in the matrice is a field space or an object ''space'' and is equal to n which is equal to 0.
q1+q2 matrice
[000]→←[000]
The same as the gravity matrice but without repulsion until the merge.
ΔX=>f1+f2
For the above just simple imagine 2 spheres right next to each other, then expand any of the spheres , this will push the other sphere changing vector position.
added- My apologies to people reading this post who do not know what abstraction maths is, here is an explanation
Quote
Abstraction in mathematics is the process of extracting the underlying essence of a mathematical concept, removing any dependence on real world objects with which it might originally have been connected, and generalizing it so that it has wider applications or matching among other abstract descriptions of equivalent ..
Post by: guest39538 on 03/02/2018 12:41:37
↑
↓
-ve
I have so many that does gravity and all fits my work.
pushes back
↑
↓
g
A+B=C
C=N=0
Post by: guest39538 on 03/02/2018 12:47:21
einstein.jpg (26.04 kB . 259x194 - viewed 4070 times)Understand I see symbols as words, it is just a language,
added- Einstein wanted one equation, Gods equation, so did I.
p.s had to add some drama lol
My favourite videos of all time
Post by: guest39538 on 03/02/2018 13:15:50
E=mc²
Ohhhhhhh, if you split A and B you have , ohhhhhhhh, I think I finally understand E=mc² now
added-
E=(A+B)/F
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/02/2018 13:58:32
OK, thanks for clarifying.Mathematical abstraction, very difficult to understand as well.Evan buddy, I have been doing abstraction math, that is why nobody understands it.
Do you mean abstract maths or mathematical abstraction?
Or were you just stringing "sciency sounding" words together?
Recognising that there is a pattern to the following observations is mathematical abstraction.
If someone has 2 apples and you give them 2 more apples, they end up with 4 apples.
If they have two oranges and someone gives them anther two oranges they end up with 4 oranges.
In general 2+2 =4
That's mathematical abstraction.
I see you find it difficult to understand
That explains a lot.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/02/2018 14:32:25
You do not need any values in abstraction maths.OK, thanks for clarifying.Mathematical abstraction, very difficult to understand as well.Evan buddy, I have been doing abstraction math, that is why nobody understands it.
Do you mean abstract maths or mathematical abstraction?
Or were you just stringing "sciency sounding" words together?
Recognising that there is a pattern to the following observations is mathematical abstraction.
If someone has 2 apples and you give them 2 more apples, they end up with 4 apples.
If they have two oranges and someone gives them anther two oranges they end up with 4 oranges.
In general 2+2 =4
That's mathematical abstraction.
I see you find it difficult to understand
That explains a lot.
Quote
Abstraction in mathematics is the process of extracting the underlying essence of a mathematical concept, removing any dependence on real world objects with which it might originally have been connected, and generalizing it so that it has wider applications
Quote
A formal system or logical calculus is any well-defined system of abstract thought based on the model of mathematics. A formal system need not be mathematical as such;
Quote
Simplification and ordering[edit]
Abstraction uses a strategy of simplification, wherein formerly concrete details are left ambiguous, vague, or undefined; thus effective communication about things in the abstract requires an intuitive or common experience between the communicator and the communication recipient. This is true for all verbal/abstract communication.
Maybe you need to understand this .
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/02/2018 14:39:31
It suggests you haven't actually read about it.
You certainly need some values, for example you need the identity elements for most operations- such as zero for addition and 1 for multiplication.
It's possible to do some maths without numbers, but you need numbers to get the more complete picture.
Also do you realise that "Abstraction in mathematics is the process of extracting the underlying essence of a mathematical concept, removing any dependence on real world objects with which it might originally have been connected, and generalizing it so that it has wider applications"
is exactly what I was doing when I took the fruit out of the discussion, and just left the arithmetic.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/02/2018 14:55:56
Simplification and ordering[edit]Do you realise
Abstraction uses a strategy of simplification, wherein formerly concrete details are left ambiguous, vague, or undefined; thus effective communication about things in the abstract requires an intuitive or common experience between the communicator and the communication recipient. This is true for all verbal/abstract communication.
Simplification and ordering[edit]
Abstraction uses a strategy of simplification, wherein formerly concrete details are left ambiguous, vague, or undefined; thus effective communication about things in the abstract requires an intuitive or common experience between the communicator and the communication recipient. This is true for all verbal/abstract communication.
I do not have to define values, I am attracting the symbols and using them appropriately to explain . However I will consider what you have said and read more about abstraction maths.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/02/2018 17:19:28
[000]+[000]=1
A mono-pole positive can not exist without a mono-pole negative, so it is nothing .
Place these two nothings at 0 point simultaneously to create 1.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/02/2018 17:30:31
I am attracting the symbols and using them appropriately to explain .Irony; much
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/02/2018 17:31:49
[000]+[000]=1Not in any accepted use of those symbols.
Post by: The Spoon on 03/02/2018 19:10:25
;D ;D ;D ;DYou post a ridiculous jpeg like that and wonder why people do not take you seriously?
Understand I see symbols as words, it is just a language,
added- Einstein wanted one equation, Gods equation, so did I.
p.s had to add some drama lol
My favourite videos of all time
Post by: guest39538 on 03/02/2018 19:59:39
Its an abstraction it does not have to mean what the accepted symbols mean.[000]+[000]=1Not in any accepted use of those symbols.
Post by: guest39538 on 03/02/2018 20:02:59
Discussing science, does not mean you cannot joke and have a bit of fun at the same time.;D ;D ;D ;DYou post a ridiculous jpeg like that and wonder why people do not take you seriously?
Understand I see symbols as words, it is just a language,
added- Einstein wanted one equation, Gods equation, so did I.
p.s had to add some drama lol
My favourite videos of all time
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/02/2018 20:30:32
Its an abstraction it does not have to mean what the accepted symbols mean.Unless you tell us what it means, it means nothing. Why waste the form's bandwidth with it?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/02/2018 21:22:55
It means what I have already explained.Its an abstraction it does not have to mean what the accepted symbols mean.Unless you tell us what it means, it means nothing. Why waste the form's bandwidth with it?
A mono-pole positive cannot exist so I have give this the value of 0
A mono-pole negative cannot exist so I have give this the value of 0
0+0=1 existence
In the mono pole matrice
A←→A
B←→B
Post by: guest39538 on 03/02/2018 21:31:19
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/02/2018 22:31:39
A mono-pole negative cannot existYou need to tell the electrons about that; they don't seem to have noticed.
And your so-called explanation makes no sense so it explains nothing.
(Don't try to blame me for that- it's your job to explain your weird ideas)
Post by: guest39538 on 03/02/2018 22:53:31
You are correct , it is my ''job'' to explain my weird ideas. I even admit they are weird ideas. The electron and proton exist in the model, but do they exist in reality?A mono-pole negative cannot existYou need to tell the electrons about that; they don't seem to have noticed.
And your so-called explanation makes no sense so it explains nothing.
(Don't try to blame me for that- it's your job to explain your weird ideas)
Let us start with an electron and work from there. An electron is a negative polarity isn't it?
Post by: guest39538 on 03/02/2018 23:00:34
[000] = 2.82 x 10-15 m
Δx=F
F=likewise polarity
0←→0
How can an electron exist when all 0 points in the matrice are likewise in polarity?
P=0 and yes that one is probability.
added- maybe your language
U[000]+V[000]=U.V
Post by: guest39538 on 04/02/2018 01:19:24
Anyway I learnt about the size of the Matrix and now know my matrix is really small
0+0=1
A[]+B[]=1
Au=0
Bu=0
a 0*0 matrice. added ΔR³=A+B
I will investigate further into matrices i need to find out more.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/02/2018 09:56:40
Let us start with an electron and work from there. An electron is a negative polarity isn't it?No
An electron has a negative charge.
The word "polarity" has a number of meanings, dependent on the context.
Since you are using it outside any of the established contexts you need to say what you are using the word to mean.
What is "polarity" in this context?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/02/2018 09:58:37
but you know me I tend to do things backwards.And you make an annoying fool of yourself by doing so. While you are at it you waste the forum's bandwidth and you run the risk of misleading people.
Why don't you stop?
Or at least put in a disclaimer pointing out that you really don't know what you are talking about.
0+0=1No it isn't.
Not even with matrices.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/02/2018 12:26:39
Do you realise that your negativity towards me and other negativity from other people is what is driving me to prove you all wrong?but you know me I tend to do things backwards.And you make an annoying fool of yourself by doing so. While you are at it you waste the forum's bandwidth and you run the risk of misleading people.
Why don't you stop?
Or at least put in a disclaimer pointing out that you really don't know what you are talking about.0+0=1No it isn't.
Not even with matrices.
I will get my maths correct eventually and show you that you are wrong, it is only a matter of time as I am getting close.
In a 0*0 matrix
[]+[]=1
I will prove this in time and then you negativity will account for nothing.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/02/2018 13:04:32
explain this matrices actions in maths please,
expansion u.jpg (47.01 kB . 1914x922 - viewed 2084 times)Δ0=Δ1/t=1/k where k is space
Post by: guest39538 on 04/02/2018 13:24:51
The basic model for empty matrices is that any operation that is defined for m-by-n matrices, and that produces a result whose dimension is some function of m and n, should still be allowed when m or n is zero. The size of the result of this operation is consistent with the size of the result generated when working with nonempty values, but instead is evaluated at zero.
For example, horizontal concatenation
C = [A B]
I am sure I already did a+b=c are people lying to me?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/02/2018 14:18:45
Do you realise that your negativity towards me and other negativity from other people is what is driving me to prove you all wrong?But you are not proving us wrong, you are proving yourself wrong.
BTW, you forgot to cite this quote (along with others)
"The basic model for empty matrices is that any operation that is defined for m-by-n matrices, and that produces a result whose dimension is some function of m and n, should still be allowed when m or n is zero."
And, more importantly, you failed to understand that it's from a programming language site which isn't quite the same usage as you would get from a mathematics site.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/02/2018 14:28:35
Try thisbut you know me I tend to do things backwards.And you make an annoying fool of yourself by doing so. While you are at it you waste the forum's bandwidth and you run the risk of misleading people.
Why don't you stop?
Or at least put in a disclaimer pointing out that you really don't know what you are talking about.0+0=1No it isn't.
Not even with matrices.
A[]+A[1u]-A[1u]=A[]??
added - If I really want to learn something, I learn it! You can read that can't you Mr Chemist?
Post by: guest39538 on 04/02/2018 14:44:21
B[]+B[1u]-B[1u]=B[]
A+B=C
A[1u]+B[1u]=AB[1u]=C
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/02/2018 14:50:29
If I really want to learn something, I learn it! You can read that can't you Mr Chemist?I can read it.
I see no evidence of it.
You continue to post nonsense.
None of the terms you use
[]
[1u]
⇒
has been defined, so it's impossible to ascribe any meaning to your posts.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/02/2018 14:55:08
OH come off it, you are good at this and know what the signs mean without me having to explain everything.If I really want to learn something, I learn it! You can read that can't you Mr Chemist?I can read it.
I see no evidence of it.
You continue to post nonsense.
None of the terms you use
[]
[1u]
⇒
has been defined, so it's impossible to ascribe any meaning to your posts.
an empty matrice []
1u is 1 internal energy
A ⇒ B means if A is true then B is also true;
Would it help if defined 1u as β− or e- for B and +1e for A?
Post by: guest39538 on 04/02/2018 14:59:27
A ⇒ B
B[]+B[β−]-B[β−]=B[]
A+B=C
A[+1e]+B[β−]=[AB]
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/02/2018 15:03:53
Matrices don't have energy (internal or otherwise) and energy isn't a matrix.
"A ⇒ B means if A is true then B is also true"
OK, that's the conventional use of the symbol, but matrices don't imply anything, not are they implied by anything.
So none of your post makes sense.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/02/2018 15:11:58
It would be a start if you learned to spell matrix.Ok lets talk the physics involved in either matrix.
Matrices don't have energy (internal or otherwise) and energy isn't a matrix.
"A ⇒ B means if A is true then B is also true"
OK, that's the conventional use of the symbol, but matrices don't imply anything, not are they implied by anything.
So none of your post makes sense.
Let us give matrix A dimension and we use a 3*1 matrix
A[uuu]
Every u in the above matrix is +1e
The mechanism of the force in the matrix will cause x to expand?
[u←→u]
Post by: guest39538 on 04/02/2018 15:18:52
A ⇒ B
A+B=G
As maybe Maxwell would put it
→
E(+1e)+E( β−)=G=M
You can't have a mass of something that does not want to stay together......
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/02/2018 17:06:56
Let us give matrix A dimension and we use a 3*1 matrixThat's not physics.
A[uuu]
Every u in the above matrix is +1e
Post by: guest39538 on 04/02/2018 18:41:04
Well it certainly is not golf . You obviously know what I am trying to explain in maths, so why can't you work some of your magic and produce the maths?Let us give matrix A dimension and we use a 3*1 matrixThat's not physics.
A[uuu]
Every u in the above matrix is +1e
Can you read this
Quote
If u = <3,-2> and v = <4,5> then u · v = (3)(4) + (-2)(5) = 12 - 10 = 2. (b) If u = 2i + j and v = 5i - 6j then u · v = (2)(5) + (1)(-6) = 10 - 6=4. Proof: We prove only the last property. Let u = <a, b> . Then u · u = <a, b>·<a, b> = a · a + b · b = a2 + b2 = (/a2 + b2)2 except when quantified by any 7point artimace exemplified by stasus elements found in field mortification parameters.
Let u, v and w be three vectors in R3 and let λ be a scalar. (1) v × w = − w × v. (2) u × ( v + w) = u × v + u × w. (3) ( u + v) × w = u × w + v × w. (4) λ( v × w)=(λ v) × w = v × (λ w). We then end up in obvious paradoxity instigated by v x y intigers elevated beyond tartus secondary aspects.
What does it say?
Post by: guest39538 on 04/02/2018 18:45:15
Quote
Let's untranslate some of it:
If u = <3,-2> and v = <4,5> then u · v = (3)(4) + (-2)(5) = 12 - 10 = 2.
Looks like the dot product of two vectors, u and v. But, <u,v> (the inner product) is another way to write the dot product
(usually restricted to 2 or 3 dimensional vectors). Hence it should be: If u = (2, -2) and v = (4,5) . . ., otherwise it looks ok.
If u = 2i + j and v = 5i - 6j then u · v = (2)(5) + (1)(-6) = 10 - 6=4.
This uses the i,j,k unit vector notation, looks pretty standard for 2 dimensions.
Let u = <a, b> . Then u · u = <a, b>·<a, b> = a · a + b · b
ok so far, but the rest goes off the rails more than a little.
v × w = − w × v.
Yep. The cross product is antisymmetric. There seems to be no problem with the rest of it, including the scalar multiplication. I have no idea what the "paradoxicity" is. Perhaps it means you shouldn't take any without food or a parachute (or something).
Quote
In mathematics, particularly in linear algebra, a skew-symmetric (or antisymmetric or antimetric) matrix is a square matrix whose transpose equals its negative; that is, it satisfies the condition AT = −A.
Quote
transpose
transˈpəʊz,trɑːnsˈpəʊz,tranzˈpəʊz,trɑːnzˈpəʊz/Submit
verb
1.
cause (two or more things) to exchange places.
"the situation might have been the same if the parties in opposition and government had been transposed"
synonyms: interchange, exchange, switch, swap (round), transfer, reverse, invert, rearrange, reorder, turn about/around, change (round), move (around), substitute, trade, alter, convert
"a pair of pictures in which the colours of the flowers and foliage are transposed"
2.
transfer to a different place or context.
Post by: guest39538 on 04/02/2018 18:50:57
u ⋅ v=C
u ⇒ v
U[000]+V[000]=U.V
added - I think I am improving?
Let u = <a> and v = <b>. Then u · v = <a>·<b> = a · b
Post by: guest39538 on 04/02/2018 23:26:03
Is this ok?
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: guest39538 on 05/02/2018 00:51:55
[-1,0,0]+[+1,0,0]=[0,0,0]?
Isn't this calculus?
[-1,-1,0]+[+1,+1,0]=[0,0,0]?
[-1,-1,-1]+[+1,+1,+1]=[0,0,0]?
Post by: guest39538 on 05/02/2018 13:55:43
<[]> =empty matrix span
u= internal energy
Post by: guest39538 on 05/02/2018 15:25:20
raindrops.jpg (22.75 kB . 852x480 - viewed 2237 times)I sit and watch the rain drops fall onto the flattened state of the pond, the energy of force released in an expanding ripple that fluctuates the calmness of the pond.
I sit and ask myself a question, where did that raindrop go?
The pond swallowed it up and the consequence was a tidal wave from where the pond was upset.
So how do I explain this in matrix form?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/02/2018 19:55:37
I think I am improvingUniquely.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/02/2018 19:56:34
So how do I explain this in matrix form?You don't.
Not everything is a matrix.
Post by: guest39538 on 05/02/2018 21:59:19
Maybe not.... However I could not ''see'' the pond or the rain drop, I could only 'see' the ripple appear then disappear.So how do I explain this in matrix form?You don't.
Not everything is a matrix.
Post by: evan_au on 06/02/2018 21:12:55
Quote from: TheBox
U[000]+V[000]=U.VNope.
I think I am improving?
- The left-hand side is the vector equivalent of addition.
- The right-hand side is (one of) the vector equivalents of multiplication.
- Keep on with the Khan Academy introduction to vectors and matrices (linear algebra).
Quote
[-1,0,0]+[+1,0,0]=[0,0,0]?Much better.
This really is the vector equivalent of addition.
Quote
I have no idea why all of a sudden I know about matricesVectors and Matrices are a generalisation of the numbers you learned in primary school and high school.
They can do some things that numbers can't do.
But simple numbers can do things that matrices can't, so it's not a perfect generalisation.
For example,
- if a & b are integers, a x b = b x a
- but if A & B are 3x3 matrices, A x B does not necessarily equal B x A.
That gives matrices a lot of power to represent the real world; in the real world, "a rotation around the Z axis followed by a rotation around the X axis" is not the same as "a rotation around the X axis followed by a rotation around the Z axis".
Another example:
- if c is a real number, the inverse of c (c-1) is defined, providing c is not 0.
- but if C is a 3x3 matrix, the inverse of C (C-1) is often undefined, even if C is not null.
In the real world, a set of equations may not give a unique answer; you can determine this by solving the equation (which effectively takes the inverse of the matrix).
Post by: guest39538 on 07/02/2018 10:41:01
Thank youQuote from: TheBoxU[000]+V[000]=U.VNope.
I think I am improving?
- The left-hand side is the vector equivalent of addition.
- The right-hand side is (one of) the vector equivalents of multiplication.
- Keep on with the Khan Academy introduction to vectors and matrices (linear algebra).Quote[-1,0,0]+[+1,0,0]=[0,0,0]?Much better.
This really is the vector equivalent of addition.QuoteI have no idea why all of a sudden I know about matricesVectors and Matrices are a generalisation of the numbers you learned in primary school and high school.
They can do some things that numbers can't do.
But simple numbers can do things that matrices can't, so it's not a perfect generalisation.
For example,
- if a & b are integers, a x b = b x a
- but if A & B are 3x3 matrices, A x B does not necessarily equal B x A.
That gives matrices a lot of power to represent the real world; in the real world, "a rotation around the Z axis followed by a rotation around the X axis" is not the same as "a rotation around the X axis followed by a rotation around the Z axis".
Another example:
- if c is a real number, the inverse of c (c-1) is defined, providing c is not 0.
- but if C is a 3x3 matrix, the inverse of C (C-1) is often undefined, even if C is not null.
In the real world, a set of equations may not give a unique answer; you can determine this by solving the equation (which effectively takes the inverse of the matrix).
I think I finally have my function correct using the eigenvalues and mapping.
How do I describe an isotropic transformation (T) of an empty matrix (a) across an open space K , ?
T(a)=λa/K?
eigenvectors of a?
aX,Y,Z = λX,Y,Z
or
aX,Y,Z=λn?
or mapped
ƒ:a→n?
ƒ:[]→[n]?
n being n-dimension , the function in bold being the correct map I think?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2018 16:18:48
ƒ: x=(a→←b) = ƒ:R³=ƒ:xyz=ƒ:(a.b)=ƒ:(a.b)→←(a.b)=ƒ:(a.b)←→(a.b)=Gravity
→
E (A) = negative polarity
→
E (B) = positive polarity
A.B = dot product
(a.b)→←(a.b)
(a.b)←→(a.b)
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/02/2018 16:23:41
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doge_(meme)
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2018 18:36:25
You seem to be doing to mathematics what this does to the English language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doge_(meme)
I should hope so, it is my abstract which attempts to explain gravity mechanism. It is not my fault it is a different language than you are use to, ostensible things are hard to diagnose so would you really expect the conventional language to be used?
ƒ: x=(a→←b) = ƒ:R³=ƒ:xyz=ƒ:(a.b)=ƒ:(a.b)→←(a.b)=ƒ:(a.b)←→(a.b)=Gravity
Would you like me to break down the cause and affect that this equation ''illustrates''?
I drew you the first function in the order of events.
function1.jpg (17.8 kB . 882x476 - viewed 2202 times)Post by: Bored chemist on 10/02/2018 18:40:42
so would you really expect the conventional language to be used?Yes.
Because otherwise nobody will be able to read what you have written.
http://dilbert.com/strip/1992-08-03
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2018 18:45:24
ƒ:R³=ƒ:xyz=ƒ:(a.b)Read it in pictures, here is function 2 of the order
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2018 18:48:45
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2018 18:59:51
Take the red pill or the blue pill?
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2018 19:02:56
nfield1.jpg (43.51 kB . 882x476 - viewed 2830 times)Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2018 19:08:45
second thoughts , scrap the above notion.
Matrix A , u= positive
(AT)i,j = Aj,i.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/02/2018 19:41:46
Open your mind Mr ChemistIf you had posted stuff in Chinese and I had said that I don't understand it, would you say that I need to open my mind, or would you accept that you need to post in a different language?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2018 20:18:49
I would suggest you learn Chinese and the Chinese person should also learn the different language.Open your mind Mr ChemistIf you had posted stuff in Chinese and I had said that I don't understand it, would you say that I need to open my mind, or would you accept that you need to post in a different language?
I think if you wanted too, you could create the correct maths I need.
I am learning by the frequency of about 1 post a day if I am lucky........so I will keep having a stab at the maths until somebody says I am correct. I am mostly self learning and abstracting.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/02/2018 21:29:17
Imagine that I learned Chinese and I still couldn't understand what you are saying because, while you are using legitimate Chinese words, you are putting them in random patterns and claiming that you have invented a new language.
Nobody but you "understands" this "language".
Obviously, I can't understand it.
Is that because I'm not open minded?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2018 22:00:27
OK, I might learn Chinese in that situation.Well then if you are open minded , let me teach you my language while I learn yours. Let us compare languages.
Imagine that I learned Chinese and I still couldn't understand what you are saying because, while you are using legitimate Chinese words, you are putting them in random patterns and claiming that you have invented a new language.
Nobody but you "understands" this "language".
Obviously, I can't understand it.
Is that because I'm not open minded?
This will be productive.
I will start with a few ''words''
1)Δt
2)ΔS
3)ΔV
4)ΔT
5)ΔF
In my words
1)change of time
2)change of entropy
3)change of velocity
4)change of temperature
5)change of force
Your language?
Post by: petelamana on 10/02/2018 22:05:17
This was one difficult convo to follow. I would like to say that I understood everything Thebox said, but I can't. However, I was able to follow about 75% of it...maybe 77%. I think Bored chemist has a point about the language. I am not an "abstractian" - coining a new word - but I am one of those guys who knows a little about numbers and those funny squiggly lines, and such. I do so enjoy Vector analysis, Linear Algebra, and matrix conceptualization. I think Thebox has some intriguing "stuff" in what he was trying to say, but I had to work exceptionally hard to dig it out. I would very much like Thebox posting, or emailing me, what he is trying to say, only in a slightly different way.
Again, I enjoyed this convo. Thank you - both of you. I bookmarked it, and will be coming back to it as soon as I take some Tylenol.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2018 22:11:54
Oh WOW!Thank you for your kind words , I will try to write a short version and inbox it you on here, I will also post the short version in this thread.
This was one difficult convo to follow. I would like to say that I understood everything Thebox said, but I can't. However, I was able to follow about 75% of it...maybe 77%. I think Bored chemist has a point about the language. I am not an "abstractian" - coining a new word - but I am one of those guys who knows a little about numbers and those funny squiggly lines, and such. I do so enjoy Vector analysis, Linear Algebra, and matrix conceptualization. I think Thebox has some intriguing "stuff" in what he was trying to say, but I had to work exceptionally hard to dig it out. I would very much like Thebox posting, or emailing me, what he is trying to say, only in a slightly different way.
Again, I enjoyed this convo. Thank you - both of you. I bookmarked it, and will be coming back to it as soon as I take some Tylenol.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/02/2018 22:15:34
But you must be using a different notation when you say
"Δ0=Δ1/t=1/k "
Because zero doesn't change.
So, rather than pointlessly explaining fairly standard symbols, why don't you try explaining what you actually said?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/02/2018 22:43:52
The use of Δt for a change in time is pretty standard (Though it's not actually something you have said in this thread so defining it is pointless.)I think I know the problem, it is the equals sign,
But you must be using a different notation when you say
"Δ0=Δ1/t=1/k "
Because zero doesn't change.
So, rather than pointlessly explaining fairly standard symbols, why don't you try explaining what you actually said?
Δ0=Δ1/t=1/k
change of 0 dimension is the change of 1 over a period of time which results in 1 divided/spread by space , missed off the over time at the end.
Δ0=Δ1/t=(1/k)/t
added- Looking at it now I could of left a Delta sign out
Δ0=1/t=(1/k)/t
Post by: petelamana on 10/02/2018 22:50:31
Post by: guest39538 on 11/02/2018 00:34:12
For the purposes of this discussion consider an array to be a rectangular arrangement of coordinate values, similar to, but not exactly like the classical "matrix". My first question is , can a mono-pole retain form in a single array?
Now quite clearly all the coordinate points of a mono-pole array, would be repulsive points to all other points of the same array.
By the laws of Physics and Coulomb's laws , the mono-pole array should always be in a state of expansion.
The array would have no strong nuclear force or gravity. All the force would be ''centrifugal'' (outwards from a central point) .
I then considered free electrons and free protons, meaning ones that are not paired.
How could an electron exist when considering the first array?
In a similar fashion to a Matrix, all electron points in the array of an electron would be repulsive to each other.
I then considered the proton , what seems true for the electron, must also be true for the proton.
So in my first array A, I want to describe this part first. I want to describe that array A cannot retain form and is always in a state of expansion.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/02/2018 03:35:18
end of argument.jpg (13.76 kB . 592x335 - viewed 2841 times)Schematic depiction of the matrix product AB of two matrices A and B.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/02/2018 03:43:55
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2018 21:22:00
change of 0 dimension is the change of 1 over a period of time which results in 1 divided/spread by space , missed off the over time at the end.
That's exactly the sort of word salad you need to explain.
My first question is , can a mono-pole retain form in a single array?
Ditto
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 11:09:33
Whatever.....who careschange of 0 dimension is the change of 1 over a period of time which results in 1 divided/spread by space , missed off the over time at the end.
That's exactly the sort of word salad you need to explain.My first question is , can a mono-pole retain form in a single array?
Ditto
Post by: guest39538 on 14/02/2018 22:04:14
b + (-b) = 0
a+b= 1
proof if (-a)=(-b) then (-a)+(-b)<(ab)
That must be close?
I think I may be getting the hang of this, in practise
a + (b-b) = a?